Own a Hummer? Crush a Prius

I think it's probably [email protected], not "waspost.com".

 

Zinc? Wasn't it 1,000 tons of nickel a year that was being mined in Sudbury, Ontario for Toyota? Did Toyota switch to a zinc-metal-hydrite battery while I wasn't looking?

 

The materials that is mined for out batteries is shipped all across the freaking globe and isn't exactly environment safe.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Apr 13 2007, 08:03 AM) [snapback]422498[/snapback]</div>

You never heard of zinkelmetalhidryde

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 13 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]422695[/snapback]</div>

Of course, the same could be said for the gasoline that an H3 guzzles over 100K miles. Based on the new EPA ratings the H3 consumes 4493 more gallons than a Gen 2 Prius over the same distance. Then you have to wonder how much more nickel a prius contains than an H3. Since Nickel is used in the production of stainless steel the H3 might actually contain more. We haven't even looked at the difference in emissions (other than the CO2 belching).

Frankly, this is good news. It really shows 2 things... 1.) the arguments against hybrids are really flimsy and 2.) the shills can't even do their bloody homework. Zinc fore soothe! A pack of tossers that lot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 13 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]422695[/snapback]</div>

You can basically say the following and always be correct.

"The XXXX that is mined for our YYYY is shipped all across the freaking globe and isn't exactly environment safe."

As long as XXXX is mined and YYYY is something we use, this statement will be correct probably 90-95% of the time. It goes for oil, any metals, and anything derived from oils and metals. I don't particularly like it, but when we buy any YYYY, there is most likely going to be a global journey involved, and whenever we mine XXXX there is going to be at least a minimum of environmental damage. That is why we should be mindful of recycling and reducing our consumption of YYYY products from XXXX sources.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sbradyny @ Apr 13 2007, 02:58 AM) [snapback]422473[/snapback]</div>

Let's put as trifling a figure as 1,000 tons a year into perspective. If the 1,000 tons of zinc were produced as quarter inch thick foot square tiles, and you took all those tiles and used them to pave over football fields, how many fields would you cover before running out of tiles? 10? 50? 100?

If you started at the goal lines (leaving the endzones uncovered), you'd run out of tiles just before reaching the 50 yard line of your 5th field.

Compared to thousands and thousands of more toxic outputs from all industries around the globe, this is pretty insignificant.

Reference: 1,000 tons of zinc would make a cube 16.5 feet on a side (4,487 cubic feet); slicing that cube into foot square quarter inch thick tiles would produce 4,487 X 48 = 215,376 tiles; football field (less endzones) is 160 feet X 300 feet = 48,000 sq. ft.; 215,376 / 48,000 = 4.487

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Here is the column and I don't think that he is advocating crushing Prii with Hummii's. His whole point is about the media trying to indoctrinate listeners into believing Environmental Fuzzy Math, and how enormously expensive it is to impact the actual worldwide climate while the change will be argueably insignificant. He then lists some outrageously farcical steps that have been recommended or should also be considered and one of them happens to be crushing your Prii with a Humii. His conclusion is contained in his last two paragraphs . . .

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:
Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?


Wildkow

p.s. that’s my reading anyway, correct me if I’m wrong.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sbradyny @ Apr 13 2007, 05:58 AM) [snapback]422473[/snapback]</div>

George Will should stick to writing about baseball.